3.8 Article

Receptor-mediated radiotherapy with 90Y-DOTA-D-Phe1-Tyr3-octreotide

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 426-434

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s002590100490

关键词

receptor-mediated radiotherapy; somatostatin analogue; Y-90/In-111-DOTATOC; peptides

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A newly developed somatostatin radioligand, DOTA-[D-Phe(1)-Tyr(3)]-octreotide (DOTATOC), has been synthesised for therapeutic purposes, because of its stable and easy labelling with yttrium-90. The aim of this study was to determine the dosage, safety profile and therapeutic efficacy of Y-90-DOTATOC in patients with cancers expressing somatostatin receptors. We recruited 30 patients with histologically confirmed cancer. The main inclusion criterion was the presence of somatostatin receptors as documented by In-111-DOTATOC scintigraphy, 90Y-DOTATOC was injected intravenously using a horizontal protocol: patients received equivalent-activity doses in each of three cycles over 6 months. The first six patients received 1.11 GBq per cycle and the four successive groups of six patients received doses increasing in 0.37-GBq steps. Toxicity was evaluated according to WHO criteria. No patient had acute or delayed adverse reactions up to 2.59 GBq Y-90-DOTATOC per cycle (total 7.77 GBq). After a total dose of 3.33 GBq, one patient developed grade II renal toxicity 6 months later. The maximum tolerated dose per cycle has not yet been reached, although transient lymphocytopenia has been observed. Total injectable activity is limited by the fact that the maximum dose tolerated by the kidneys has been estimated at 20-25 Gy. Complete or partial tumour mass reduction occurred in 23% of patients; 64% had stable and 13% progressive disease. It is concluded that high activities of Y-90-DOTATOC can be administered with a low risk of myelotoxicity, although the cumulative radiation dose to the kidneys is a limiting factor and requires careful evaluation, Objective therapeutic responses have been observed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据